*Unofficial* England ODI team thread

I've thought we need a thread like this for quite a while.

Despite the fact it (ie, the England ODI team) has been pretty useless since a time before this forum even came into existence, it's always been one of the most-discussed topics and sees new threads spring-up regularly and causes constant "domination" of tour threads involving England. In time hopefully we can do a few mergers and maybe move some posts, but for now, this can be the starting point.

So: England have been hopeless in ODIs since 2000/01, despite the fact that "England are improving in ODIs" has been said at least once a year (often after a victory in the opening game of a series or a rare series victory, usually one which is achieved despite being the inferior side thanks to flukes or freaks) throughout that period.

Discuss.

Disagree with us being labelled useless. We are an inconsistent outfit that aren't capable of being world beaters, but the side playing at the minute is better than the last one we took to India. We went aaaages without winning a bilateral series of any kind under Fletcher, at least we've beaten a couple of sides under Moores, India & South Africa at home, Sri Lanka away.

i still think they just fill in time between ashes tours

I don't think we're a million miles from having a consistently competitive ODI side, and that in itself is quite frustrating, knowing we're pretty close.

The current problems we have, imo, are an inability to play spin effectively, obviously this problem is highlighted when we are competing in the sub-continent. We are struggling for a pair of openers to give us a solid start at a decent run rate and capitalise on the fielding restrictions. The balance of the side is not right and we are asking players to perform roles that they do not do for their counties, in the positions that got them the England recognition.

I think a number of the players in the current side should be here to stay, but with one or two alterations (I actually think probably three different players, but a shift in the order) we can achieve much more success.

strauss and/or cook not an option ? i know they are both fairly stout, but no reason why they can't translate their array of attacking strokes into the one day format more regularly

Just wondering what would have happened had Richard titled the thread as "Official - England ODI side". Perhaps for another day.

My XI would be

Petersen
Bell
Bopara
Flintoff
Shah
Patel/Dimitri
Prior
Broad
Sidey
Anderson
Panesar

Don't tell me the usual can't bat can't field Panesar. If Munaf Patel can be in a team, and if that side's winning, tells a story.

Agree with Richard. We are useless.

There just isnt the players. I know I heavily criticise a number of them, and rightly so IMO, but the case can be made that they deserve selection.

GeraintIsMyHero said:

Disagree with us being labelled useless. We are an inconsistent outfit that aren't capable of being world beaters, but the side playing at the minute is better than the last one we took to India. We went aaaages without winning a bilateral series of any kind under Fletcher, at least we've beaten a couple of sides under Moores, India & South Africa at home, Sri Lanka away.

Click to expand...

Dead right - and very creditable wins all of those were.

I think the point made elsewhere about the standard of domestic oneday cricket is well made. Our default standard is lower than elsewhere, and unless our national side is slected and playing somewhere close to 100%, then we lose. Others have a bit more leeway because they know what they're doing.

As for the current India series, it doesn't help that we're playing a decent side in Asia with naff all in the way of preparation. If all we're willing to do is play a couple beer matches before the real stuff begins, what does anyone expect? Especially given what I said in the previous para.

Precambrian said:

Just wondering what would have happened had Richard titled the thread as "Official - England ODI side". Perhaps for another day.

Click to expand...

Same thing really. It's just we have an *un-official New Zealand black caps thread" which is used on a continuous basis, and the idea is that this is the same.

My XI would be

Petersen
Bell
Bopara
Flintoff
Shah
Patel/Dimitri
Prior
Broad
Sidey
Anderson
Panesar

Don't tell me the usual can't bat can't field Panesar. If Munaf Patel can be in a team, and if that side's winning, tells a story.

Click to expand...

Munaf Patel isn't as bad a fielder as MSP, though admittedly there have been times when there's not been a lot between them.

Even given MSP's utterly hopeless fielding (the batting isn't a massive concern to me, you can afford one genuine no-hoper, NZ have Martin for example) I'd still give serious consideration to having him in the side if he was a pretty decent one-day bowler. But he isn't. And even if his fielding was of Paul Collingwood and Ian Bell's standard I'd never have him in right now. Graeme Swann is a much better spinner in the shorter game (provided he's not bowling in the Powerplays), and the fact that he can bat as well, whereas MSP can't, is an added bonus.

MSP's exclusion from the ODI side is based purely on his bowling, which is not up to ODI-standard. Graeme Swann's, on the other hand, is, and it's ridiculous that he was dropped for the series against SA and the opening 2 games of the India series (though as I said, it's unlikely to have done him much harm to not play at Rajkot).

Ends justified the means at home to SA though, 4-0 speaks for itself. But he should have been in from the start in India.

Rant0r said:

strauss and/or cook not an option ? i know they are both fairly stout, but no reason why they can't translate their array of attacking strokes into the one day format more regularly

Click to expand...

Strauss has already half destroyed himself as a Test player by trying to translate his game to ODIs, to which it's entirely dissuited. I don't want a) that to happen again or b) that to happen to Cook.

Hence, I'm none too sorry to see either excluded now.

While getting a good ODI side is important, it's not worth harming your Test side for.

Richard said:

Even given MSP's utterly hopeless fielding (the batting isn't a massive concern to me, you can afford one genuine no-hoper, NZ have Martin for example) I'd still give serious consideration to having him in the side if he was a pretty decent one-day bowler. But he isn't. And even if his fielding was of Paul Collingwood and Ian Bell's standard I'd never have him in right now. Graeme Swann is a much better spinner in the shorter game (provided he's not bowling in the Powerplays), and the fact that he can bat as well, whereas MSP can't, is an added bonus.

MSP's exclusion from the ODI side is based purely on his bowling, which is not up to ODI-standard. Graeme Swann's, on the other hand, is, and it's ridiculous that he was dropped for the series against SA and the opening 2 games of the India series (though as I said, it's unlikely to have done him much harm to not play at Rajkot).

Click to expand...

All true. I would only add my concerns about the negative effect on MSP's bowling in tests once he became a regular in the oenday side.

Rant0r said:

strauss and/or cook not an option ? i know they are both fairly stout, but no reason why they can't translate their array of attacking strokes into the one day format more regularly

Click to expand...

Yes, I've suggested already in previous threads that Alastiar Cook would be in my ODI side, provided he can improve on working the ball around and rotating the strike. He'd be clear as to exactly what his role would be as an opener, and personally I could see getting more ODI centuries as an opener than most.

GeraintIsMyHero said:

Ends justified the means at home to SA though, 4-0 speaks for itself. But he should have been in from the start in India.

Click to expand...

As I've said so many times, good\bad selection is based on the merits of the players at the time, not on what ended-up happening.

"We won so therefore the selection was good" isn't an option, IMO. Nor "the bad selection can be ignored because we won". Selections (good or bad) are what they are completely independent of the result.

I (or Dan Smith, or Darren Murphy) could be picked for Australia and they'd probably still win most games. It'd not make it a good selection.

Graeme Swann's exclusion from the SA series was a shocker. That SA were poor enough and some of the rest of England's players good enough for it to not impact on a 4-0 victory is irrelevant to that.

GeraintIsMyHero said:

Disagree with us being labelled useless. We are an inconsistent outfit that aren't capable of being world beaters, but the side playing at the minute is better than the last one we took to India. We went aaaages without winning a bilateral series of any kind under Fletcher, at least we've beaten a couple of sides under Moores, India & South Africa at home, Sri Lanka away.

Click to expand...

The "useless" term is pretty broad for the time between October 2000 and the current time. Our results have indeed been less poor in the last year-and-a-bit than before, but I still don't think the personnel is much better.

I should probably do the whole "played since WC2007" thing again mind.

Richard said:

As I've said so many times, good\bad selection is based on the merits of the players at the time, not on what ended-up happening.

"We won so therefore the selection was good" isn't an option, IMO. Nor "the bad selection can be ignored because we won". Selections (good or bad) are what they are completely independent of the result.

I (or Dan Smith, or Darren Murphy) could be picked for Australia and they'd probably still win most games. It'd not make it a good selection.

Graeme Swann's exclusion from the SA series was a shocker. That SA were poor enough and some of the rest of England's players good enough for it to not impact on a 4-0 victory is irrelevant to that.

Click to expand...

Except that the spinner who replaced him justified his selection, even if Swann was initially unlucky to be dropped. Obv games 1 & 2 in this series are another matter, as I said at the time.

Patel put in a couple of decent performances, sure. However, I don't think that showed anyone that to pick a batsman who bowls a bit of spin ahead of a genuine front-line spinner who was going very promisingly in the few ODIs he'd played was a remotely good decision. And it wasn't, IMO. I think the longer-term outcome, regardless of the short-term one, will show that.

There is absolutely no way on Earth that Samit Patel is going to be that good a ODI bowler. Swann quite possibly might be.

Could stomach us being rank in the abbreviated forms when we were on the up in tests, but being dire in all forms seems like overkill now.

The trouble is who do we have who is better to bring in? I see Trott, who probably has as good a case as anyone, has withdrawn from the performance squad after the "exertions" of the Hong Kong Sixes. Doesn't suggest a player hungry for international honours to me. I guess Denly & Malan (both of whom bowl leg-spin, which might be useful at times) will get a go sooner or later, Davies's case gets stronger with each Prior failure & Raynor has height and playing for Sussex in his favour if another spinning all-rounder is required.

No guarantees with any of them tho, sadly.

Denly possibly has some potential. No more than that. Malan has done near nothing of note in OD cricket as far as I've seen (as well as having only 3 or 4 good First-Class games at best), and is another South African as well.

Oliver Rayner? Please God no. He might, possibly, end-up being a county-standard all-rounder, but Tim Bresnan and Sajid Mahmood (players picked for ODIs without even looking like being county-standard bowlers) were quite enough for one lifetime.

Davies does look like he might've worked-out how to play one-day cricket though, which for an English youngster who excelled at First-Class cricket while completely bombing at one-day stuff for his first couple of seasons, is a very promising sign indeed. But no more than that yet. Would still prefer Ambrose if the game was played tomorrow.

BoyBrumby said:

Could stomach us being rank in the abbreviated forms when we were on the up in tests, but being dire in all forms seems like overkill now.

The trouble is who do we have who is better to bring in? I see Trott, who probably has as good a case as anyone, has withdrawn from the performance squad after the "exertions" of the Hong Kong Sixes. Doesn't suggest a player hungry for international honours to me. I guess Denly & Malan (both of whom bowl leg-spin, which might be useful at times) will get a go sooner or later, Davies's case gets stronger with each Prior failure & Raynor has height and playing for Sussex in his favour if another spinning all-rounder is required.

No guarantees with any of them tho, sadly.

Click to expand...

Trott does seem to have developed a reputation of being something of an arse, which is a worry at this stage of his career. Granted the same was true about KP, but the prospect of two of them in the same dressing room my not be a happy one.